Abstract:The proven beneficial effects of low-load blood flow restriction training on
strength gain has led to further exploration into its application during
rehabilitation, where the traditional use of heavy loads may not be feasible.
With current evidence showing that low-load blood flow restriction training may
be less well tolerated than heavy-load resistance training, this review was
conducted to decipher whether i… Show more
“…The mean and SD of the final set performed in each training session were chosen for the analyses, as performed in a previously published systematic review. 61 When the study reported both local and overall RPE values, only the overall RPE was considered for the analyses. The standardized mean difference (SMD) and SE were extracted from individual studies and pooled using the generic inverse variance method.…”
Context: Several studies have compared perceptual responses between resistance exercise with blood flow restriction and traditional resistance exercise (non-BFR). However, the results were contradictory. Objectives: To analyze the effect of RE+BFR versus non-BFR resistance exercise [low-load resistance exercise (LL-RE) or high-load resistance exercise (HL-RE)] on perceptual responses. Data Sources: CINAHL, Cochrane Library, PubMed®, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science were searched through August 28, 2021, and again on August 25, 2022. Study Selection: Studies comparing the effect of RE+BFR versus non-BFR resistance exercise on rate of perceived exertion (RPE) and muscle pain/discomfort were considered. Meta-analyses were conducted using the random effects model. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Level of Evidence: Level 2. Data Extraction: All data were reviewed and extracted independently by 2 reviewers. Disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. Results: Thirty studies were included in this review. In a fixed repetition scheme, the RPE [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 1.04; P < 0.01] and discomfort (SMD = 1.10; P < 0.01) were higher in RE+BFR than in non-BFR LL-RE, but similar in sets to voluntary failure. There were no significant differences in RPE in the comparisons between RE+BFR and non-BFR HL-RE; after sensitivity analyses, it was found that the RPE was higher in non-BFR HL-RE in a fixed repetition scheme. In sets to voluntary failure, discomfort was higher in RE+BFR versus non-BFR HL-RE (SMD = 0.95; P < 0. 01); however, in a fixed scheme, the results were similar. Conclusion: In sets to voluntary failure, RPE is similar between RE+BFR and non-BFR exercise. In fixed repetition schemes, RE+BFR seems to promote higher RPE than non-BFR LL-RE and less than HL-RE. In sets to failure, discomfort appears to be similar between LL-RE with and without BFR; however, RE+BFR appears to promote greater discomfort than HL-RE. In fixed repetition schemes, the discomfort appears to be no different between RE+BFR and HL-RE, but is lower in non-BFR LL-RE.
“…The mean and SD of the final set performed in each training session were chosen for the analyses, as performed in a previously published systematic review. 61 When the study reported both local and overall RPE values, only the overall RPE was considered for the analyses. The standardized mean difference (SMD) and SE were extracted from individual studies and pooled using the generic inverse variance method.…”
Context: Several studies have compared perceptual responses between resistance exercise with blood flow restriction and traditional resistance exercise (non-BFR). However, the results were contradictory. Objectives: To analyze the effect of RE+BFR versus non-BFR resistance exercise [low-load resistance exercise (LL-RE) or high-load resistance exercise (HL-RE)] on perceptual responses. Data Sources: CINAHL, Cochrane Library, PubMed®, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science were searched through August 28, 2021, and again on August 25, 2022. Study Selection: Studies comparing the effect of RE+BFR versus non-BFR resistance exercise on rate of perceived exertion (RPE) and muscle pain/discomfort were considered. Meta-analyses were conducted using the random effects model. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Level of Evidence: Level 2. Data Extraction: All data were reviewed and extracted independently by 2 reviewers. Disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. Results: Thirty studies were included in this review. In a fixed repetition scheme, the RPE [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 1.04; P < 0.01] and discomfort (SMD = 1.10; P < 0.01) were higher in RE+BFR than in non-BFR LL-RE, but similar in sets to voluntary failure. There were no significant differences in RPE in the comparisons between RE+BFR and non-BFR HL-RE; after sensitivity analyses, it was found that the RPE was higher in non-BFR HL-RE in a fixed repetition scheme. In sets to voluntary failure, discomfort was higher in RE+BFR versus non-BFR HL-RE (SMD = 0.95; P < 0. 01); however, in a fixed scheme, the results were similar. Conclusion: In sets to voluntary failure, RPE is similar between RE+BFR and non-BFR exercise. In fixed repetition schemes, RE+BFR seems to promote higher RPE than non-BFR LL-RE and less than HL-RE. In sets to failure, discomfort appears to be similar between LL-RE with and without BFR; however, RE+BFR appears to promote greater discomfort than HL-RE. In fixed repetition schemes, the discomfort appears to be no different between RE+BFR and HL-RE, but is lower in non-BFR LL-RE.
“…Interestingly, however, Individualized pressure appears to be widely accepted owing to its logical basis, but it does not justify the choice of individualized pressure when setting up a BFR-RT exercise program, and more theoretical support needs to be found for the use of individualized pressure for BFR-RT (Clarkson et al, 2020). Another related meta-analysis (Sinclair et al, 2022) described that the cuff inflation pattern (continuous and intermittent pressure) was not a variable affecting muscle strength gain, but the results of the analysis were limited to two articles, entailed limited guidance value in terms of enhancing muscle strength with BFR-RT interventions that use different cuff inflation patterns. In addition.…”
Purpose: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, blood flow restriction (BFR) with low-load resistance training (BFR-RT) was compared with high-load resistance training (HL-RT) on muscle strength in healthy adults. The characteristics of cuff pressure suitable for muscle strength gain were also investigated by analyzing the effects of applying different occlusion pressure prescriptions and cuff inflation patterns on muscle strength gain.Methods: Literature search was conducted using PubMed, Ovid Medline, ProQuest, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Scopus databases to identify literature published until May 2023. Studies reporting the effects of BFR-RT interventions on muscle strength gain were compared with those of HL-RT. The risk of bias in the included trials was assessed using the Cochrane tool, followed by a meta-analysis to calculate the combined effect. Subgroup analysis was performed to explore the beneficial variables.Results: Nineteen articles (42 outcomes), with a total of 458 healthy adults, were included in the meta-analysis. The combined effect showed higher muscle strength gain with HL-RT than with BFR-RT (p = 0.03, SMD = −0.16, 95% CI: −0.30 to −0.01). The results of the subgroup analysis showed that the BFR-RT applied with incremental and individualized pressure achieved muscle strength gain similar to the HL-RT (p = 0.8, SMD = −0.05, 95% CI: −0.44 to 0.34; p = 0.68, SMD = −0.04, 95% CI: −0.23 to 0.15), but muscle strength gain obtained via BFR-RT applied with absolute pressure was lower than that of HL-RT (p < 0.05, SMD = −0.45, 95% CI: −0.71 to −0.19). Furthermore, muscle strength gain obtained by BFR-RT applied with intermittent pressure was similar to that obtained by HL-RT (p = 0.88, SMD = −0.02, 95% CI: −0.27 to 0.23), but muscle strength gain for BFR-RT applied with continuous pressure showed a less prominent increase than that for HL-RT (p < 0.05, SMD = −0.3, 95% CI: −0.48 to −0.11).Conclusion: In general, HL-RT produces superior muscle strength gains than BFR-RT. However, the application of individualized, incremental, and intermittent pressure exercise protocols in BFR-RT elicits comparable muscle strength gains to HL-RT. Our findings indicate that cuff pressure characteristics play a significant role in establishing a BFR-RT intervention program for enhancing muscle strength in healthy adults.Clinical Trial Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails; Identifier: PROSPERO (CRD42022364934).
“…In the G RTBFR, cuffs were deflated between sets and exercise intervals to restore normal limb circulation, as additional care for PWH. This intermittent BFR favors a better rate of perceived exertion 29 . Figure 2 Training protocol and assessments during the intervention period.…”
Resistance training with blood flow restriction (RTBFR) allows physically impaired people living with HIV (PWH) to exercise at lower intensities than traditional resistance training (TRT). But the acute and chronic cardiac and metabolic responses of PWH following an RTBFR protocol are unknown. The objective was to compare the safety of acute and chronic effects on hemodynamic and lipid profiles between TRT or RTBFR in PWH. In this randomized control trial, 14 PWH were allocated in RTBFR (GRTBFR; n = 7) or TRT (GTRT; n = 7). Both resistance training protocols had 36 sessions (12 weeks, three times per week). Protocol intensity was 30% (GRTBFR) and 80% (GTRT). Hemodynamic (heart rate, blood pressure) and lipid profile were acutely (rest and post exercise 7th, 22nd, and 35th sessions) and chronically (pre and post-program) recorded. General linear models were applied to determine group * time interaction. In the comparisons between groups, the resistance training program showed acute adaptations: hemodynamic responses were not different (p > 0.05), regardless of the assessment session; and chronicles: changes in lipidic profile favors GRTBFR, which significantly lower level of total cholesterol (p = 0.024), triglycerides (p = 0.002) and LDL (p = 0.030) compared to GTRT. RTBFR and TRT induced a similar hemodynamic adaptation in PWH, with no significant risks of increased cardiovascular stress. Additionally, RTBFR promoted better chronic adequacy of lipid profile than TRT. Therefore, RTBFR presents a safe resistance training alternative for PWH.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02783417; Date of registration: 26/05/2016.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
